3 ms·
Backbone source is insanly easy to read , and it's short. Angular's on the other hand ... but that's the price to pay for it's features. I would not call Angul
by camus 13y ago
Backbone source is insanly easy to read , and it's short. Angular's on the other hand ... but that's the price to pay for it's features.
I would not call Angular magic. Basically there is a "loop", the digest cycle , whereas in Backbone you would add Backbone components to your code.
AngularJS creator worked at Adobe on Flex , and Adobe in fact attempted to create a "AngularJS" for non developers bundled with Dreamweaver ( Spry framework , but databinding was only one way).
I like AngularJS but since i dont do form centric apps ( more reactive documents with a lot of animations,svg or canvas) i went with Ractive + Backbone. Ractive is easier to learn and to use.
But AngularJS is pretty RAD when you have a lot of forms ( an admin panel ,etc ...), and provides a big testing plateform too.
> To me it's a bit like the JavaScript version of Drupal
hmm yeah maybe , drupal hooks are a bit like backbone directives in spirit.
- troyk 13y agoThanks for mentioning Ractive (http://www.ractivejs.org/ http://www.ractivejs.org/), first time I've seen it. I'm wondering why you would prefer angular for a form-centric app? I've used angular and rivets.js + backbone with success, my preference being angular but Ractive looks like a way to get awesome templating and databinding without committing the entire app to a single monolithic framework. It also seems that server side rendering is more reachable with it's mustachy roots.
- rich_harris 13y agoRactive creator here - yes, Ractive runs in Node. You create an instance similarly to on the client (ractive = new Ractive({ template: myTemplate, data: myData }) - obviously you don't specify a container element), then use ractive.renderHTML() to get the result.